eDiscovery – Page 3

ilsteam
July 17, 2019

Judge Rules There is No Duty on Non-Parties to Preserve Evidence

In Shamrock-Shamrock, Inc. v. Remark, No. 5D18-1987 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Apr. 26, 2019), the District Court of Appeals, Fifth District, ruled in favor of Appellee, holding that there is no duty on nonparties to a lawsuit to preserve evidence based on the foreseeability of litigation. This case stems from Appellant’s suit against the City

ilsteam
July 12, 2019

Judge Orders Plaintiff To Produce His Telephone Records Citing Lack Of Viable Privilege Claim

In Siemers v. BNSF Railway Co., No. 8:17-cv-360 (D. Neb. Apr. 8, 2019), the Magistrate Judge ordered Plaintiff to produce his telephone records after finding that such records were not subject to a privilege claim solely because Plaintiff’s counsel’s telephone number may appear in the records and that the privacy issues are minimal to non-existent

ilsteam
July 10, 2019

Motion For Sanction Denied Where No Prejudiced Shown

In Harvery v. Hall, et al., Civil Action No. 7:17-cv-00113 (W.D. Va April 22, 2019), the Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiff’s Motions for Sanctions for Spoliation on the grounds that, despite a finding of gross negligence on the part of Defendants, Plaintiff failed to demonstrate prejudice from the loss of the ESI. This prison case stems

ilsteam
July 5, 2019

Judge Orders Plaintiff To Produce Telephone Records Citing Lack Of Viable Privilege Claim

ilsteam
July 1, 2019

Court Denies Defense Request To Allocate Discovery Costs

In East Coast Test Prep, LLC, v. ALLNURSES.COM, Inc., et al., Civil No. 15-3705(JRT/ECW)(D. MN April 4, 2019), the United States District Court for Minnesota denied Defendant’s motion for a protective order that sought to allocate the costs associated with complying with Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents on the grounds that the motion was

ilsteam
June 28, 2019

Plaintiffs Permitted to Proceed With “Plainly Relevant And Core Discovery” Pending Motion To Dismiss

In Udeen v. Subaru of America, Inc., Civ. No. 18-17334(RBK/JS)(D. NJ Mar. 12, 2019), the Magistrate Judge denied Defendant’s request to stay all discovery pending a ruling on their Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that a stay would impose an undue prejudice on the non-moving Plaintiffs. This putative nationwide class action was brought against

ilsteam
June 26, 2019

ND Cal. Holds that Searching Thirty-Thirty Custodians Not Proportional to Case’s Needs

In Alta Devices, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc., Case No. 18-cv-00404-LHK (VKD)(N.D. Ca. Feb. 20, 2019), the court denied Plaintiff’s motion to require Defendant to conduct ESI searches across thirty-three custodial files, finding that Plaintiff’s request was not proportional to the needs of the case. In its motion, the Plaintiff emphasized that the information it

ilsteam
May 16, 2019

No Spoliation For Lost Emails Under FRCP 37(e) Where Potential Prejudice is Purely Speculative

In CIGNEX Datamatics, Inc. v. Lam Research Corporation, No. 17-320-MN (D. Del. Mar. 11, 2019), the court denied Defendant’s motions for spoliation and for sanctions, finding insufficient evidence that Plaintiff suffered prejudice due to the deleted electronically stored information (“ESI”). This case stems from a breach of contract in which Plaintiff agreed in January 2015

ilsteam
May 2, 2019

Defendants Sanctioned in Prince Music Dispute for Wiping Cell Phones

In Paisley Park Enterprises, Inc., et al., v. George Ian Boxill, et al., No. 17-cv-1212 (D. Min. Mar. 4, 2019), a Minnesota magistrate judge granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions due to spoliation of evidence on the grounds that Defendants acted with an intent to deprive Plaintiff of ESI to

ilsteam
April 10, 2019

Plaintiff Sanctioned for Intentionally Spoliating Cell Phone Evidence

In employment discrimination case Brewer v. Leprino Foods Company, Inc., No CV-1:16-1091-SMM (E.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2019), the Eastern District of California granted Defendant’s motion for sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e)(2), finding that Plaintiff “acted with the intent to deprive” Defendant of certain relevant ESI. The sanction motion followed a non-party deposition in